Criminal Law

Dist. Ct. did not commit plain error in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of incarceration on charges of bank robbery and brandishing firearm during bank robbery, even though defendant argued that Dist. Ct. denied him right of allocution at his sentencing hearing. While Dist. Ct. interrupted defendant on two occasions during allocution to ask defendant questions, said interruptions did not amount to denial of right of allocution where, as here, instant interruptions constituted attempt to have defendant refocus on issue of mitigation. Moreover, although defendant contended that interruptions prevented him from discussing certain topics, record showed that defendant had already touched on said topics, and thus further discussion would not have given defendant lesser sentence. (Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his unlawful possession of firearms conviction, where defendant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file motion to suppress gun purportedly found by police in defendant's pocket during search of defendant. While defendant informed counsel that police had planted gun in pocket during instant search, defendant's insistence that police had planted gun neither justified nor compelled counsel to refrain from challenging search that produced gun. Moreover, trial counsel (as well as Dist. Ct.) mistakenly believed that defendant had to admit to actual possession of gun in order to challenge its seizure, and that defendant could properly file motion to suppress where he had reasonable expectation of privacy in his own person and clothing. Accordingly, remand was required for evidentiary hearing on issue as to whether trial counsel's failure to file motion to suppress was prejudicial to defendant.

Dist. Ct. erred in sentencing defendant to 66-month term of incarceration on fraud charge stemming from scheme to have residential properties purchased at inflated sales prices, where sentence was based in part on miscalculation regarding number of victims attributed to defendant. Record showed that actual number of victims was seven, and thus Dist. Ct. should not have found existence of two-level enhancement for offense involving more than 10 victims. Moreover, defendant is entitled to new sentencing hearing even though he received below guidelines sentence since it was impossible to know whether Dist. Ct. would have imposed same sentence if it had been aware of actual guideline range.

In prosecution on drug distribution and firearm charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress three separate inculpatory statements made after defendant had been stopped while driving vehicle, after officer began reading search warrant to defendant, and after defendant had been taken to police statement, where defendant claimed that all three statements had been taken in violation of his Miranda rights. First statement, which was made during initial traffic stop, did not violate Miranda since defendant was not in custody at any time during his routine traffic stop. Moreover, while defendant was in custody at time of second statement, he was not subjected to interrogation where officer was merely reading copy of search warrant at time of statement. Also, defendant failed to establish Miranda violation with respect to third statement since record showed that he had been given Miranda warnings prior to that statement, and Ct. rejected defendant's claim that said statement was tainted due to prior violations of Miranda.

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his 1984 murder conviction on grounds that prosecutor exercised several peremptory challengers based on jurors' race in violation of Batson. While jury contained two African-American members, as well as one African-American alternate juror, record showed that prosecutor used disproportionate amount of challenges, i.e., 15 out of 20 to excuse African-American jurors, and state court failed to consider instant disproportionate use when determining any Batson violation. Moreover, with respect to at least five African-American jurors, some reasons for use of challenges proffered by prosecutor (i.e., fact that juror was teacher or married to teacher or had tenuous employment or other ties to community) either were not factually supported by record or were applied unequally to non-African-American jurors.